Slashdot Mirror

The GP was probably referring to this analysis: If Sweden and Germany Became US States, They Would be Among the Poorest States.

This analysis was based on median income (not mean or per capita income or GDP) to address concerns about wealth inequality, and takes into account social services, taxation, and cost-of-living. A glance at the second chart, the one adjusted for regional price parity, shows that adjusted median income in Louisiana—the poorest of the U.S. states—is higher than that in France, Ireland, and the United Kingdom, half of the OECD member states of Western Europe (as defined by the CIA), and also higher than the median incomes in Spain and Portugal, the two OECD countries in Southwestern Europe. The exceptions are Belgium (5.1% by population), Luxembourg (0.2%), and the Netherlands (7.6%).

In other words, 87% of the population of the OECD countries of Western and Southwestern Europe live in a country with a lower median income (including tax-funded social services) than the poorest U.S. state, after adjusting for cost-of-living.

Based on the above statistics, I feel that the GP was actually quite generous in comparing the wealth of most Western European countries to Mississippi or Alabama.

I don't quite agree with his figures though. Some 33 US states are at or below the US annual income per household per capita and another 4 are no more than $1000 above the US median and that includes wealthy California. It sounds to me as if Germany, Sweden and California are about on the same level in terms of per capita income and all are competitive high tech modern economies with a highly educated population. Also, if you are comparing Germany with Alabama you are comparing a country of 82 million people that has a fairly high average standard of living with a state that has a population of 4.8 million, that is a net recipient of federal aid money and has some of the worst poverty levels in the US. Comparing Germany and Sweden to California would be a better comparison.

According to him:
EU Average - $35632
Which sounds about right if we are talking about median income per capita per annum.

However, according to this: https://www.ceicdata.com/en/in... I get the following average incomes per household per capita:
US: $29,865.60
Germany: $31,136.72

According to OECD per household per capita:
http://www.oecdbetterlifeindex...
http://www.oecdbetterlifeindex...
Sweden: $30,553
Germany: $33 652
OECD average: 30 563

US states (according to the 2010-2014 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates):https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_income
The 2016 figures are from here: http://www.deptofnumbers.com/i...

Highs:
1) District of Columbia: $45,877 (2016: $45,545)
2) Connecticut: $39,373 (2016: $41,087)
3) New Jersey: $37,288 (2016: $38,911)

Around median:
15) California $30,441 (2016: $33,389)
16) Illinois $30,417(2016: $32,849)
17) Hawaiii: $29,736 (2016: $32,634)

Absolute lows:
49) West Virginia: $22,714 (2016: $24,769)
50) Mississippi: $21,036 (2016:$22,694 )
*) Puerto Rico: $11,241

How about some data to put these arguments into context?

Its less fashionable neighbor, Queens, outearns Brooklyn at $54,373 per year. New York City's most suburban borough, Staten Island, is also its richest, with a median household income of $70,295, while the suburban counties surrounding New York are all richer than any of the boroughs.Jan 9, 2014
https://www.google.com/url?sa=...

The ACS 1-year data shows the median family income for San Francisco was $103,237 in 2015. Compared to the median California family income, San Francisco median family income is $29,656 higher. As with the median household income data, 2016 family income data for San Francisco will be released in September of 2017.
http://www.deptofnumbers.com/i...

Based on those numbers, a "family" composed of 2 earners would be making 5x the median income for a familly in San Fran and 6x that in Staten Island. I'd say that definitely qualifies as rich. Now whether that affords one a "Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous" type of living, would be a different question. No doubt though that $250K is a lot even on the wealthy coasts. That housing costs are outrageous is a whole other issue.

$10 * 40 hours per week * 52 weeks per year (no vacations) = $20,800

$20,800- 2,000 for average federal taxes = $18,800

$18,800 - median gross rent of 959 * 12 months = $11,508

$11,508 - rough average utilities * 12 months = $10,248

$10,248 - $2,641 for food = $7,607

$7,607 - rough average of health insurance per individual mandate of $3,000 = $4,607

$4,607 - annual average cost of transportation of $9,004 = -$4,397

Let's stop there. Now that person that "could live pretty well on $10 an hour" still has state and city taxes to attend to, general maintenance costs like clothing, a cellphone bill that needs to be paid (good luck getting a job without having a phone number), has no retirement, has no savings in the case of actually needing to use their health insurance, will never see a vacation, and is increasing their debt by $12 per day.

Do you understand why the average American has $16,000 in credit card debt?

That debt only covers four years of living expenses. Why could that be? Because that is how long many people live the way you describe as being "could live pretty well on $10 an hour" in order to attend higher education and seek out a better life. They rack up an average $37,172 of student loans during that time.

Now they have no savings, no assets, have never known a vacation, couldn't possibly afford to use their health insurance, have no credit, and have $53,172 in debt but finally have an opportunity to get a better job: "If you can keep up with the bots, you can stay."

How is that for living pretty well on $10 an hour?

Have you?

Yes, I have. It's pretty damned trivial... population x income = cost. According to http://www.deptofnumbers.com/i..., the per capita income in 2015 was $30,000.

(330 * 10^6) * (30 * 10^3) = 9.9 * 10^12

Just shy of 10 trillion dollars. The US budget in 2016 was one third of that: $3.5T.

$100,000/year in California is diddly. Municipal bus drivers can make that much here.

Where are you getting your data? Median California household income in 2015 was $64,500. And according to this, the highest paid bus drivers in the state are in Santa Cruz, making $57,420.

The people that have an education, speak fluent English, know a trade, and are generally employable and have employees, tend to leave for greener pastures in other states. The people left behind are not the same level of wage earners as those that leave.

Yes, that must be why California's constant dollar per-person GDP is going up faster than the national average. Oh, and California's percentage of wages going to worker is also growing faster than the national average so it must be all low skill workers that bring nothing to their employers that are left behind. /s

Define "fair share" please.

I can tell you what its isn't. It isn't executives getting paid the current exorbitant salaries- nobody is worth that. And they rarely seem to answer for failure. And it isn't living on $40K-$60K annual income in the US right now either.

You two seem to be arguing your positions on the premise that socialism and capitalism lie at exclusive and opposite extremes. The two can coexist. We have social security and free market economy, but both are in need of change. Here's some numbers you requested: http://www.deptofnumbers.com/i... and http://www.pewresearch.org/fac... and http://www.pewresearch.org/fac...

I think they show it is getting harder out there for working stiffs. Would you agree executive salaries are out pacing worker gains?

The current average retail price of a new car is now $33,560 or about 64% of U.S. Household income. In 1980, it was $7,200 or 44% of 1980 median household income. The further back you go, the more affordable cars were. Compound that with the fact that most households used to be single income, and now most households are dual income means that the real rate of increase of car prices is even more out of control than it looks.

And back in the good old days, we bought them more often. Last vehicle I bought was to replace a ten year old one. When I started driving, in ten years, you were on your third vehicle.

Due to all of the tech in cars now, they are too fucking expensive. That's why most people lease cars -- because they cannot hope to actually pay for one outright any more. This is only going to exacerbate that problem. Until auto-makers can make cars that will last generations of drivers can they expect us to pay for them over generations.

The current average retail price of a new car is now $33,560 or about 64% of U.S. Household income. In 1980, it was $7,200 or 44% of 1980 median household income. The further back you go, the more affordable cars were. Compound that with the fact that most households used to be single income, and now most households are dual income means that the real rate of increase of car prices is even more out of control than it looks.

No, it tends to be looking at a building that has collapsed because it was artful, but structurally unsound, when people go all, "wow, that was really pretty, but didn't have a lot of structural integrity."

That being said, for a job that has only around 100k jobs in the US, out of a total of 150 million, doesn't seem like it warrants being a core subject:

http://www.aia.org/press/AIAS0...

"The National Council of Architectural Registration Boards (NCARB) estimates the number of architects licensed in the United States at 105,847."

http://www.deptofnumbers.com/e...

"There were 139,004,000 jobs in the US in July 2014 according to the CES survey of employers. The CPS survey of households showed 146,352,000 employed persons for the month. "

Around 7/100ths of 1% - sounds like a hobby market to me.

The defining characteristic of the serf class was that people born serfs would live their entire lives as serfs and their children would too. There was no pathway to move up classes.

It's all about the rate of change. Upward mobility is falling in the USA like a rock from the sky. Compare the total public debt to the ever-growing income disparity:
http://www.deptofnumbers.com/m...
http://piketty.pse.ens.fr/file...
These things do not bode well for those not born into at least the upper middle class, and specific examples to the contrary only speak to the legal and socioeconomic possibility of moving upwards, not the difficulty.

Do you have a source? Because I recently looked at federal revenue as a percentage of GDP. It's been surprisingly constant since World War 2. Specifically, government revenue (i.e. taxes) have fluctuated between 15% and 20% during that entire period.

Look at the graph "Government Receipts and Expenditures as a Fraction of GDP", it's the second chart on this webpage: Source: http://www.deptofnumbers.com/m...

When you factor in the cost of living in CA, $70k doesn't go all that far....

Maybe not, but it beats the median household income in California by about $10k source. And it beats the median 1-earner income by $20k.

If teachers make $22k in Brevard, FL, that's pretty tragic, but this lawsuit is about teachers in California, who can be well compensated, depending on the district they're in. Also, as the post you responded to pointed out they get extremely generous benefits. It's easy to disregard them as you did, but the pension contributions and lifetime medical benefits are unimaginably expensive.

That's a bit disingenuous for multiple reasons. First, you are comparing an average to a median. Second, you are comparing salaries to median household income, not median income for people with a bachelor's or higher, a post-secondary credential, and no criminal offenses that would bar them from teaching.

Pulling from the original source, LAUSD's lowest offered salary was $39,788. That should be just enough money for a new teacher to afford a single bedroom apartment, unless they have to pay student loans or something... The average was ~$69k, and the highest $78k. In a place where modest 3-bedroom homes go for $400k or more.

Do you think initial CA teaching salaries are high enough to attract top talent? Good talent? Mediocre? Could your IT department attract good talent with salaries like that? It sounds more like the pay is low, and the only financial incentive to become a teacher is job stability. Which went away ca. 2009.

As for the benefits, I would agree. They are quite generous. But I would only favor cutting benefits and job stability if we boosted salaries drastically to make them competitive with the private sector. Real figures on total compensation would be far more useful in this discussion.

When you factor in the cost of living in CA, $70k doesn't go all that far....

Maybe not, but it beats the median household income in California by about $10k source. And it beats the median 1-earner income by $20k.

If teachers make $22k in Brevard, FL, that's pretty tragic, but this lawsuit is about teachers in California, who can be well compensated, depending on the district they're in. Also, as the post you responded to pointed out they get extremely generous benefits. It's easy to disregard them as you did, but the pension contributions and lifetime medical benefits are unimaginably expensive.

Of course their wage base is slightly higher than us mere mortals.

$99,000 makes the developer a demi-god.

US Household Income

According to the Census ACS survey, the median household income for the United States was $50,502 in 2011, the latest data available.

US Per Capita Income

The ACS 1-year shows the per capita income in the United States was $26,708 in 2011, the latest year available.

Income US

Forgive me, but I dont really understand why people in this country deserve jobs more than people in another country, particularly if theyre more skilled or asking for less money.

It's quite simple really. The jobs in America are possible as a result of the infrastructure in America. The infrastructure in America was predominantly paid for by taxes on American citizens. Since American's paid for the infrastructure that made it possible for the "Job Creators" to create those jobs, why shouldn't they have first crack at those jobs?

Oh, but you were going to point out that the corporations paid taxes which also supported that same infrastructure? They didn't really. According to this site, corporate taxes on account for approximately 2% of the GDP, while taxes on citizens account for closer to 8% of the GDP http://www.deptofnumbers.com/blog/2010/08/tax-revenue-as-a-fraction-of-gdp/

Long Island is quickly running out of open land, the prices in some areas in eastern areas are astronomical. More and more farmland is being sold to developers. Closer to N.Y. City, perfectly sound homes get razed to the ground in order to sub-divide the land and build multiple homes. It's a crazy market here on L.I. where home prices average $375,000, and the closer to the water you go, well as they say, if you have to ask what the price is, you probably can't afford it! http://www.deptofnumbers.com/asking-prices/new-york/long-island/

You are correct that there is some difficulty for those with degrees in getting jobs, but the recession hit those with less education the hardest. December 2010's unemployment numbers are as follows: Less than highschool 15.3%, Highschool grad with no college 9.8%, Some college or associate degree 8.1%, Bachelor's Degree or higher 4.8%.

Source

About half of the discretionary budget is spent on the military.

http://www.warresisters.org/files/FY2011piechart.pdf

The reason the United States is dying is because we aren't collecting enough taxes to pay for our infrastructure. We started two wars and then dropped taxes. That shit doesn't work.

When our way of life actually was in danger during WII, we immediately raised taxes to pay for the cost of saving our country, and those rates lasted throughout the 50s, which was one of our best economic periods in history. Our national debt dropped, and continued to do so through 1980. Then an actor named Ronald Reagan decided to hand the nation's wealth to the wealthy, and hope they wouldn't blow it all on coke and hookers and stupid investments. He was wrong. Then he passed deregulation that led to the S&L crisis, just like Clinton passed the regulation that would eventually lead to the derivatives crisis that's still boning our economy. Reagan also raised military spending but dropped taxes, and that shit didn't work back then either. Bush I and II continued the same idiot policies, and people complain that Obama hasn't fixed the economy yet. Well, when you've had some fucking frat brats with sledgehammers renting a place for the better part of 30 years, it tends to take more than 20 months to fix.

Anyway, Bush II got kicked out for doing the sensible thing and raising taxes to cover our debt. Clinton raised the top rate again to 39.6%, reduced military spending, and our national debt dropped. McCain even ran in 2000 on protecting Social Security to fulfill our promise to "the greatest generation" with the extra money we had lying around. But that sad sack of shit has sold out along with the rest of the Republican party, pandering to some illiterate backwoods fuckwits called "Evangelical Christians" who believe that Obama is a Nazi Socialist Muslim born in Kenya.

But you need a certain type of idiot to vote against their own interests and ignore common sense and hard data for thirty years running. They're the same idiots who give Jesus $5 hoping for a $10 return. They think the GOP will give them the same deal, and they don't know how fucking right they are.